IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v11y2008i1-2p69-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientised citizens and democratised science. Re-assessing the expert-lay divide

Author

Listed:
  • Rolf Lidskog

Abstract

During the last decade there have been growing calls for increased public inclusion in risk regulation. This paper investigates three of these proposals for a new relationship between science and the public, namely New Production of Knowledge, Postnormal Science, and Scientific Citizenship. These all concern how science can be democratised and how new relations between expertise and citizens can be negotiated and designed. By critically discussing the similarities and differences between these proposals, this paper examines the implications of the call for public inclusion in risk regulation. By way of conclusion, some warnings are raised concerning the belief in public inclusion as a cure-all for making knowledge production and risk regulation more publicly credible and socially robust. The space created for public inclusion may work as means for legitimating decisions, diluting accountability and persuading the public, with the consequence that the expert-lay divide may be reproduced rather than transformed.

Suggested Citation

  • Rolf Lidskog, 2008. "Scientised citizens and democratised science. Re-assessing the expert-lay divide," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1-2), pages 69-86, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:11:y:2008:i:1-2:p:69-86
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870701521636
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870701521636
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870701521636?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hong, Yoorim, 2018. "How the discussion on a contested technology in Twitter changes: Semantic network analysis of tweets about cryptocurrency and blockchain technology," 22nd ITS Biennial Conference, Seoul 2018. Beyond the boundaries: Challenges for business, policy and society 190383, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    2. Rachel Pateman & Heidi Tuhkanen & Steve Cinderby, 2021. "Citizen Science and the Sustainable Development Goals in Low and Middle Income Country Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-24, August.
    3. Cotton, Matthew & Rattle, Imogen & Van Alstine, James, 2014. "Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 427-438.
    4. Loreta Tauginienė & Eglė Butkevičienė & Katrin Vohland & Barbara Heinisch & Maria Daskolia & Monika Suškevičs & Manuel Portela & Bálint Balázs & Baiba Prūse, 2020. "Citizen science in the social sciences and humanities: the power of interdisciplinarity," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Hatsue Koizumi & Hiromi Yamashita, 2021. "Deficit Lay or Deficit Expert: How Do “Experts†in Environmental Projects Perceive Lay People and Lay Knowledge?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:11:y:2008:i:1-2:p:69-86. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.